Democrats are "Ginning Up" Support For ObamaCare

The Democrats seem to think they have a winning reason for people "not" to vote Republican in 2020 (and beyond) as a result of the repeal of ObamaCare. Because of this, they are willing to make up all kinds of lies in order to gin up support for keeping the ACA.

Bernie Sanders said 36,000 people a year would die with the repeal/replacement of ObamaCare.  The Washington Post said this about that:

That's the max Pinocchio's you can get from the "Post" for lying.  And, the lie didn't just stop with Bernie.  Despite the "pants on fire" rating by the "Post," the claim continues to be perpetuated by well-known Democrats such as Terry McAuliffe and Elizabeth Warren.

Then, there's this from Nancy Pelosi.  According to her, 17 million children have pre-existing conditions that would result in denial of coverage. First of all, that number represents 24% of the 70 million children in the country.  Does anyone think that one-out-of-every-four children in America will become uninsured?  Again, the Washington Post had to set the record straight by saying that it is more likely that only 4 million children have pre-existing conditions.

But, understand, there is a difference between having a pre-existing condition like ADHD and having an extremely serious condition that would warrant being uninsurable.  Healthcare economist John C. Goodman stated in an interview with CNBC, that before ObamaCare went into effect, the percentage of uninsured was just 1%.  Thus, Nancy Pelosi's 17 million would be further whittled down to 700,000.

The same goes for Representative Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, who is claiming 129 million people with pre-existing conditions would be hurt (I guess financially) by TrumpCare. Again, this is another gross exaggeration that had to be called out by the Washington Post, and to which the 1%  rule (noted above) would be applied.  The "Post" says the number is more like 50 million who will have negative impacts on their insurance.   Further, only about 3 million may find themselves uninsurable.

The word "might" is highlighted because the GOP House healthcare bill addresses pre-existing conditions with risk pools.  People who would have higher insurance rates would be placed in risk pools that would be partially funded by the Federal Government to keep their costs down.  In addition, the GOP healthcare bill mandates that no one can be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Those who don't have pre-existing conditions, should have their insurance costs reduced as a result of not having to pay for those with high healthcare costs due to long-term care for those pre-existing conditions.

 I could go on and on about all the lies being told.  But, people dying and pre-existing conditions seem to be at he forefront of the Democrat's effort to save ObamaCare.  Other related issues will be addressed in later blog posts.

References:

Fact Checker: Bernie Sanders’s claim that ‘36,000 people will die yearly’ if Obamacare is repealed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/14/bernie-sanderss-claim-that-36000-people-will-die-yearly-if-obamacare-is-repealed/?utm_term=.9fd97e7078a6

Democrats' grim prognosis on GOP health bill: 'People will die': http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-grim-prognosis-on-gop-health-bill-people-will-die/article/2622207

Pre-Existing Conditions: Evaluating Competing Claims: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/health-care-fact-check-preexisting-conditions.html

Pre-existing condition figures 'nonsense' — here's how to address it, author says: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/pre-existing-condition-figures-nonsense--heres-how-to-address-it-author-says.html

Elizabeth Warren is Delusional

If you listen to this speech on the Senate floor by Elizabeth Warren (the first few minutes of the following video), you would think the Democrats are somehow in the majority:

Warren seems unable to come to grips with the fact that most of the country does not support her or her party.  She seems to think that the fact Hillary Clinton has a 2 million popular vote lead, is somehow, proof that she is in the majority.  However, if you separate out the 2.8 million lead that she  has in California, Trump would win the popular vote.  Trump won the popular vote in three-fifths of the states. California does not represent the nation as a whole.  In the last 8 years, the Democratic party has suffered massive losses both in Washington and across the country (as noted in my two referenced blog entries below).

Elizabeth Warren has proven why America is tired of the Democrat's bulls**t; constantly certain that  they know what is best for the country.

References:

Not able to comprehend that the old guard of the Democratic party has put it in the worst shape in 80 years, the House Democrats have, once again, elected Nancy Pelosi as their Minority Leader: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2016/12/pelosi-minority-leader-again.html

I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly...What gives me fleeting hope is the knowledge that millions of Americans — a majority even — feel as I do: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2016/11/democrats-want-trump-to-fail.html

Facts Matter: Four Responses to 'Hillary Won the Popular Vote' http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/11/30/but-hillary-won-the-popular-vote-five-responses-n2252368

Elizabeth Warren's $22 Minimum Wage Pitch?

Whether or not Elizabeth Warren, the liberal Senator from Massachusetts, will jump into the race for the Democratic nomination is anyone's guess.  But, if she does, expect to hear a wide range of far left and progressive ideas during her campaign. I can say that with certainty since she has already demonstrated this with such comments like the following in her attempt to justify higher debilitating taxes on businesses:

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Of course, that comment completely ignores the primary and "underlying social contract" for  businesses -- if there is such a thing -- which is to create jobs for most Americans so they can feed themselves and not depend on government handouts. 

However, the most far left idea she has presented to date, is the belief that the minimum wage shouldn't just be $10.10 or even $15 an hour.  Instead, it should be $22 an hour based on the assumption that, by now, it should have been indexed to productivity gains.  In arguing that point, she presented this chart sourced from a progressive think tank known as the Center for Economic Policy and Research:

Graphic Shown Without Seeking Author's Approval On The Basis of Fair Use For Commentary and Criticism

What the above graphic fails to explain is "why," starting in 1968, the minimum wage and, for that matter, all wages, started to diverge from productivity increases.  Oddly enough, the simple answer to that is actually World War II, which ended more than two decades earlier.

At the end of the war, many of today's industrial powers such as Japan, Germany, England and France suffered devastating damage to their industrial infrastructure.  Unemployment was high, wages were low; and, their currencies were weak.  Only by the 1960's did their industrial activity recover enough to start exporting products.  Because of this, the United States businesses found themselves unable to compete with cheaper imported goods.  Cheaper because of lower wages in Europe and Japan and because our currency was stronger than many others. As a result, the U.S., starting in the late 1960's, went from being a net positive exporter to a net negative importer of foreign goods (see the balance of trade report referenced below).

In order to compete, businesses had to find ways to lower costs. This entailed eliminating jobs by increasing the productivity levels through automation and, in many cases, moving their manufacturing operations overseas.  And, it has been the fear of losing more jobs that has, in the past, kept politicians from raising the minimum wage in the face of increasing productivity.  Yet, politicians like Warren are willing to tempt fate by pushing it even higher.  A fact that could result in increasing job losses through automation in the form of artificially intelligent robotics.  Already, experts are predicting that 30% of American jobs could be replaced by robots within 10 years.


References:

Elizabeth Warren: "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own": http://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth-warren-there-is-nobody-in-this-country-who-got-rich-on-his-own/

Elizabeth Warren: Minimum Wage Would Be $22 An Hour If It Had Kept Up With Productivity: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/elizabeth-warren-minimum-wage_n_2900984.html

Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage Is Still Far From What It Should Be: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/seattle-minimum-wage_n_5437916.html

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) is an economic policy think-tank that was founded in 1999 by economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot. It has been described as both progressive and left-leaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research

Trade Balances: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

Experts predict robots will take over 30% of our jobs by 2025 — and white-collar jobs aren't immune: http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-predict-that-one-third-of-jobs-will-be-replaced-by-robots-2015-5

The 'Fair Use' Rule: When Use of Copyrighted Material is Acceptable: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html 

Are Corporations People? No, according to Obama and the Democrats.

Last year, at a campaign rally, Mitt Romney, when being harassed by a certain spectator in the crowd, made the statement that "corporations are people".  Immediately, the anti-business and anti-corporation Democratic National Committee jumped on those words and put this campaign ad together:



Since then, Barack Obama  and other Democrats like Elizabeth Warren -- the U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts --  have repeated Romney's words to try and prove that he is both out-of-touch and in the pockets of the wealthy and big business.  But, for these people to argue that corporations aren't people is simply a specious argument.  Romney is right because corporations, as an entity, are a collective of people; both in terms of jobs and ownership.  Right off the bat, under the laws of this country, a corporation is  legally viewed as a person.  Because a corporation is a person, it must obey laws and it can be taxed. Something that the legal scholar, Barack Obama, should know quite well.

But, to the point that Romney was trying to make, let me use a hypothetical small business such as a lawn care service as an example.  Let's say that service is made up of three people: an owner and two employees.  I doubt that any Democrat, even Barack Obama, would say that business isn't either made up of people or, simply, isn't people.  Well, here's the thing, that lawn care business, if the owner wanted to, could become a corporation tomorrow. And, if it did become a corporation, it would look no different than it did before.  It would have the same owner and two employees.

Incorporating or the act of becoming a corporation is simply a legal mechanism to allow for structured, multiple ownership.   The owners are people who own shares or stock in that business.  Those owners have voting rights on a one vote per one share basis.  The shareholders will collectively elect a Board of Directors to oversee the general operation of the company.   The "Board" will hire a Chief Executive to run the business who, in turn, will hire other employees; as needed.  On behalf of the shareholders, the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive will decide what has to be done to grow the company and make it profitable for the shareholders.

The rationale behind this "corporations aren't people" lie is all about politics.  Barack Obama and other Democrats don't want us to think of corporations as truly being people, because it would then make it difficult to demonize them without looking like they're demonizing hard working people who work for and own corporations.

Elizabeth Warren's Socialist Blather

Elizabeth Warren, an attorney and law professor who has worked, primarily, for the Obama Administration over the last 2-1/2 years, is running to unseat Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. In a town hall-style event yesterday, she made these remarks:

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody... You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

While everything she said sounds "logically" true, the reality is that her viewpoint totally ignores the fact that "if" we didn't have the superior wealth creators that we have in this country, there would be no massive tax base and the taxable jobs to build the roads or to build the schools and pay for the teachers to educate the people. When she talks of the "rest of us" who "paid for" the "roads", who the hell is she really talking about? The 50% of this country who pays zero taxes; yet, still gets to use those roads? Obviously she's ignoring the fact that the "rich" pay 70% of all the taxes in this country.

She's playing a game of flawed chicken-and-egg political nonsense that sounds more like something a communist would have said in the former bankrupt society of the U.S.S.R. A society that, too, had teachers, police, fireman, and roads but never achieved the economic status that this country has. No wonder Obama originally hired her!